Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Pope in the Chair]

Greg Pope: Before we start, I place on record my thanks to my co-Chairman, Mr. Williams, for stepping into the Chair at short notice on Tuesday.

New Clause 2

Chief Social Worker
‘(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a Chief Social Worker to fulfil the functions mentioned in this section.
(2) The Chief Social Worker shall be responsible to the Secretary of State.
(3) In fulfilling his functions the Chief Social Worker shall, to the extent he considers it appropriate, consult and take advice from—
(a) relevant government employees and agencies;
(b) representative bodies of social workers;
(c) local authorities and other providers of social work services; and
(d) such other persons as he considers appropriate.
(4) The Chief Social Worker shall make recommendations to the Secretary of State on issues concerning—
(a) the provision of social work services across the country;
(b) the terms and conditions of social workers;
(c) such other matters as the Secretary of State may direct.
(5) The Chief Social Worker shall publicise and promote examples of good practice in social work and be answerable for other aspects of social work practice.’.—[Tim Loughton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Tim Loughton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Welcome back to the Chair for the last leg of this Committee, Mr. Pope. So far it has been conducted in an exceedingly amenable, friendly and constructive manner. I am sure that today will be no exception. However, as we are likely to be interrupted this afternoon by a number of votes and a number of new clauses have been tabled by hon. Members across the Committee, I will try to get through those in my name as quickly as possible this morning.
New clause 2 proposes the creation of the post of chief social worker. It resulted from the Conservative party commission on social workers that I chaired and which reported last October. That commission has been mentioned in the Committee several times. As everybody knows, we have a chief medical officer, who is currently Sir Liam Donaldson. He appears frequently on the media as the face of the health service who advises the Secretary of State. We also have a chief veterinary officer. Many people will remember Debby Reynolds, the former holder of that post, who is a little more familiar than Nigel Gibbons who took over from her. We do not have a post of chief social worker.
In this Committee, on Second Reading and in other debates, we have touched on the problem that we all acknowledge faces social workers of their perception in the press, the constant torrent of negative stories about them and the lack of reports on their many positive achievements. I have described social workers as potentially the fourth emergency service. They should be viewed as no less important than teachers, police, nurses and doctors. Their work is integral to sustaining vulnerable families, keeping them together and providing crucial support. However, for some reason they do not get the same recognition and respect among the general public.
Too many people view social workers as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. The first contact many people have with social workers is when there is a knock on the door, which may be the beginning of proceedings that lead to a child being taken into care. Many social workers would like to intervene much earlier and work on a preventive basis to keep vulnerable families together. It would be good if they had the opportunity to do that, but this problem exists because of the pressures on the system and the high vacancy rates which are at 20 per cent. in some parts of the country.
Our commission recommended that the Government create the post of chief social worker. To quote from our report, a family barrister, Jessica Lee, who was one of our witnesses, wrote of social workers:
“Due to resource pressures, they are now seen as ‘bad guys’ who only appear to intervene and remove children rather than be able to offer the supportive role that they feel they used to be able to provide to families.”
A representative of the British Association for Adoption and Fostering said:
“Their work demands the deepest understanding into the nature of the human condition and the personal cost to them of doing so can be high. In the public eye, social workers have become too easily identified with the problems of their clients.”
The General Social Care Council stated that
“social work is often seen as the poor relation in a professional world; ‘only 40 per cent. of the population see the contribution of social workers to society as very important’.”
There was plenty of evidence to suggest that there is a problem with the way that social workers are perceived. That will be all too familiar to Committee members who have followed that profession. That inevitably has an impact on their ability to do their job.

Annette Brooke: I am listening with interest and it is not that I am unsympathetic. Will the hon. Gentleman give me an idea of the scale of the office that might be set up around the chief social worker?

Tim Loughton: I shall come to that in a minute. The hon. Lady makes a good point. Obviously, some of the roles are set out in the new clause.
My other point is that the commission found that of some 76,000 social workers registered with the GSCC, only 11,000 belonged to the British Association of Social Workers. There is a problem, therefore, regarding a strong voice for the profession, and the head of the BASW in giving evidence admitted some of the shortcomings of the current situation. In contrast, the British Medical Association represents the interests of 70 per cent. of doctors and the Royal College of Nursing represents 60 per cent. of nurses. There is not a big body that speaks up for social workers.
The post of chief social worker may be occupied by somebody who is already in the Department of Health. There will be a slight anomaly and a split between adult social workers and children social workers. Whether the chief social worker would be equally responsible to the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Department of Health is to be determined. For example, in the Department of Health we have David Behan, who is well known to many of us as director general for social care—he was previously chief inspector of the Commission for Social Care Inspection. He is exceedingly well respected and highly qualified. The proposal may mean re-badging somebody like David Behan, if not David Behan himself.
I am not talking about an enormous upheaval in structures, creating a whole new department within the Department of Health or the Department for Children, Schools and Families, but about having a higher profile for a lead person who is recognised as the chief social worker. I shall summarise their roles, as set out in the new clause. They would be the face of social workers in the media, in particular when there was a big case. They would also carry the can in the public eye when there seemed to be something wrong with the system, and they would oversee the promotion of the social worker profession and better recruitment campaigns, and would advise the Secretary of State or the Secretaries of State on technical matters to do with social workers. If we give that sort of status to a chief social worker, hopefully there will be a trickle-down effect on the status, standing and recognition of all social workers.
I do not pretend that this is a universal panacea, that overnight people will say, “Oh, now that we have a chief social worker, I am going to let my social worker over the threshold more often.” It is a question of building up those images and perceptions. I shall give the example of New Zealand, where as part of our study I had a long conversation with Marie Connolly, who is the chief social worker in that country. The post was created some years ago because they had the same problem there with the perception of social workers. They thought that it would be helpful to create the post of chief social worker. Marie appears frequently in the media. She told me that she had been offered her own regular newspaper column, to report on the life of social workers and on things going on in the profession. The innovation was generally judged to be successful, and we can learn many lessons from it.
Another thing that came up in our study—it seems a flippant suggestion but it is not—was that there should be a soap opera or a popular television programme centred on social workers. We have such programmes on doctors, nurses and teachers, and even forensic pathologists have become part of the culture of popular TV. Yet when social workers appear in soaps, in “EastEnders” for example, they are terribly stereotyped and portrayed in a pretty derogatory way as interfering, which only reinforces some of the misperceptions that many members of the public have. If we saw social workers in a different light, as human beings trying to do a difficult job—in many cases a very difficult job—in difficult circumstances with restraints on resources, people might come to appreciate their role more.
It is an important point of principle. If the Government were to adopt the idea, we could work on how to create the position. I do not intend it to be another bureaucratic structure within Government. It is largely a question of how we focus on one of the most important sets of people working with vulnerable families. Creating the post of chief social worker would send out some very positive messages to the profession, but perhaps more importantly to the public, who might come to appreciate social workers better. Social workers may then be able to do their difficult jobs more easily than they can at the moment. I commend new clause 2 to the Committee.

Beverley Hughes: Let me start by saying that I understand completely the sentiment behind the new clause. I shall declare an interest as having trained as a probation officer on a post-graduate social work course. For some years I taught others to become post-graduate social workers at Manchester University, so I share the sentiments that social workers have a vital role promoting the best outcomes, particularly for vulnerable children. Social workers are often misunderstood and get an unfair press. They deserve our support and gratitude. While their mistakes make headline news, and rightly so, their many successes go largely unreported and unappreciated. I am with the spirit of the hon. Gentleman’s new clause. It is good to see the Conservative Party sharing those sentiments about social workers now. I recall that it was not always the case.
Some time ago we started to recognise social workers’ valuable contribution, and the need to support the work and improve its quality, with a £73 million programme for social work improvement over the next three years, which the Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West is leading. That will increase the capacity, skills and numbers of social workers. Specifically to support newly qualified social workers, we are piloting a newly qualified social worker status and strengthening initial social work training. We are developing a professional development framework for social workers, so that there are better career pathways, and supporting experienced staff to remain in practice and act as mentors. That will build on the existing post-qualifying framework for social workers.
As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham says, is it equally important to promote a positive public image, which we are trying to do through a major national targeted marketing and communications campaign.
The difficulties with the new clause at this time, and I stress “at this time”, are threefold. The hon. Gentleman alluded to some of it. We already have an arguably overcrowded infrastructure for the support and development of social workers. As he mentioned, we have the General Social Care Council, which publishes codes of practice to set the standards of conduct and promotes social work. We have also established the Children’s Workforce Development Council, which embraces social work as part of its work across the whole children’s workforce, including social care. The current chair of the board is Michael Leadbetter, a former director of social services in Essex, and he has wide experience in the social work sector. The Association for Directors of Children’s Services and the Association for Directors of Adult Services are also playing a role in driving improvements in quality and practice. The National Children’s Bureau is hosting a new centre, working with key partners including the Social Care Institute for Excellence.
Within the Department, the Chief Inspector for Education, Children’s Services and Skills has a duty to inform the Secretary of State of the quality of children’s services generally. As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has said, David Behan, the director-general for social care, is in the Department of Health, but has a cross-government role none the less. The director for social care leadership and performance reports to him. That post-holder must be a qualified social worker and in that capacity provides professional leadership and advice to Ministers about the profession. My hon. Friend, and I before him, worked closely with the relevant Minister in the Department of Health on all these matters relating to social work practice and social care. There is quite a crowded field already.
Secondly, to pick up a couple of points that the hon. Gentleman made, to compare this post with other chief officer posts is not necessarily a valid exercise without considerable discussion. Take the example of the chief medical officer. That post is rather different from that which I would envisage here. That is because the structure of those organisations and the way in which the professionals are employed within them is very different. The NHS is a central body, directly managed by the Department of Health. The chief medical officer post and the chief nursing post, among others, provide input directly to assist that management. Here, of course, social workers are employed by local authorities, without that central management structure.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned a comparison with New Zealand. We are not necessarily talking about the same kind of structure and would a chief social worker post offer the same as it may seem to do in New Zealand? Social care there is like the NHS and the Department of Health here; it is the province of a central Department which discharges all the social work functions. Here social workers are employed by local authorities, which are responsible in law for those social care functions. The post of a chief social worker does not translate that easily.
Finally, the most important reason for me is that we set out in our children’s plan our ambition to have a world-class children’s work force. To help us implement both the changes we have already made and those we want to make, we have established an expert group to support us in developing a long-term strategy for the work force, including social work. We will publish that in the autumn. The expert group, and the strategy team that is supporting it, are looking at six themes: work force capacity, excellence in practice, purpose and roles, improving joint working, what interventions work and developing and managing work force reforms.
One the of the key things the group is looking at is whether the delivery infrastructure for different parts of the work force, which I sketchily outlined and suggested was already very crowded, makes sense now. The expert group is deep into considering that evidence at the moment. I would not want to pre-empt its considerations by adding in another post now. A chief social worker post may be an interesting idea as we reform that infrastructure. I am happy to ask the expert groups specifically to examine that proposal, but I do not feel able to accept the amendment now, because we are in this process with experts from the profession advising us how we might make some long-term and more radical changes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that assurance, recognise that we will ask our expert group to give his proposal consideration and therefore not press his new clause.

Tim Loughton: I am grateful for the Minister for her comments, although she spent almost as much time knocking down the idea of a chief social worker, as I spent trying to set it up. That was slightly churlish, considering the positive way in which it was put forward. I have been attending Association of Directors of Social Services conferences for many years, making many positive and constructive speeches about the role of social worker, often in contrast to Secretaries of State, who have gone to ADSS and similar conference pointing a finger of blame at social workers, which they have found extremely demoralising.
This work on the commission set up by the Conservative party was the culmination of many years of wanting to do something more constructive and help the whole role of social worker. We were able to attract a heavyweight panel of experts, professionals and academics, some of them members of the Labour party, who were prepared to come along and contribute positively to what they saw as a very good cause. They have all engaged in the process and our report has been greatly welcomed. I would be delighted to make that report available, either in the hard copies that remain in my office or by downloading it from the Conservative party website, to the expert group to which the Minister referred.
I understand the three reasons the Minister gave for why it is not suitable to take on the post at this time, although I think that the long list of various different structures that she trooped out indicates that that is part of the problem. It is a crowded system and the line management is confused, and I think that it causes confusion within the industry, let alone the public. I would rather see a reorganisation and overhaul of all the different bodies and posts to streamline them into a more recognisable, appreciated and acknowledged group of posts, and the chief social worker would make a major contribution to that streamlining.
I hope that the Minister will feed the discussion into the expert group she has set up, which is due to report in the autumn, and that the outside world will see that as a constructive suggestion. On the basis that she was not overly churlish, has acknowledged the positive parts of the proposal and said that the Government would not be prepared to take it on “at this time”, which suggests that there might be opportunities for it later, I am perfectly happy not to press the new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

Early intervention
‘Before a child is committed into care, the local authority must, where appropriate, offer a family group conference and any other reasonable intervention which may alleviate the need for a child to be put into care.’.—[Tim Loughton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Tim Loughton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Greg Pope: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 29—Family group conference—
‘(1) The 1989 Act is amended as follows.
(2) In section 22 at end insert—
“(9) Before making any decision with respect to a child whom they are proposing to look after the local authority shall, unless it is not reasonably practicable or consistent with the child’s welfare, offer the child’s parents or those with parental responsibility a family group conference to discuss the making of a plan for their child.”’.

Tim Loughton: New clause 5 deals with family conferencing and overlaps to some degree with new clause 29, which has been tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford and other hon. Members. Both new clauses contain references to a family conference, and that relates to our previous debate on the importance of early intervention and of being able to keep vulnerable families together rather than having children taken into the care system. The importance relates to both the value to the families and the cost savings to society as a whole. The new clause also refers back to the welfare checklist that I proposed as part of new clause 1, which the Minister responded to positively. She did not adopt it, but she is certainly prepared to consider it within regulations.
I will not go into great detail on family conferencing, as I am sure that many members of the Committee, if not all, are familiar with it. Family conferences are family-led, decision-making meetings at which parents, relatives and friends, following significant preparation by an independent co-ordinator, develop a plan for the child’s care that addresses child welfare or protection concerns identified by the local authority. The Family Rights Group’s briefing sets that out well and gives evidence of how it is a proven mechanism. It claims that family conferencing is:
“a means of engaging the family to identify and support care arrangements for vulnerable children and their parents”;
“a way of identifying alternative care arrangements within the family when the parent cannot continue to look after the child, including identifying necessary support packages to avoid the child being received into state care”;
“a means of planning for the child to see members of their family and return home to their family network from state care wherever possible”;
It claims that such conferencing should be used prior
“to ‘pathway’ planning for children leaving local authority care.”
I mentioned some of the examples of best practice on the model of family conferencing and family support run by certain children’s organisations, not least of which is NCH, which has a good track record of some impressive projects. I recently visited its Phoenix service in Merton, which works intensively with families that are reaching crisis point. It can take them on board quickly and provide them with intensive, 24-hour support, seven days a week, whatever the crisis might be. At the end of the period the family is linked into existing local services. The intervention involves defusing the immediate, precipitate crisis that led to the service referral, with support workers engaging the family, children and/or young people, liaising with other agencies, assessing the problems, developing specific, measurable goals and helping everyone in the family to acquire the skills to achieve them. That gets all gets all the family members together around a table—literally or metaphorically—to sort out what outside, holistic support will be required to get the family back on its feet. Based on an average placement time of three years for a child who is taken into the care system, NCH estimates that such a family intervention service could offer cost saving of £127,140 per intervention, which is significant. That really is investing to save—there are financial savings and it makes financial sense, but the family could also be saved and kept together.
The Government are positive about such organisations and they are keen to disseminate best practice, but not enough kinship placements are initiated by local authority social workers. One good way of promoting that, other than the through the measures that are already in the Bill, is to ensure that family conferences take place as standard rather than as an exception. There is a bit of postcode lottery regarding the availability of family conferencing. If we were to put a measure in the Bill that stresses the preventive attraction of family conferences so that there would have to be good reasons why a family conference was not attempted or viable, there might be many more kinship placements; better still, many more families could be kept together, and fewer children would have to be taken into care, with all the expense, angst and trauma that that can bring about. New clause 5 is straightforward and I am happy to recommend it to the Committee.

David Kidney: It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Mr. Pope. I rise to speak to new clause 29, but it is similar to new clause 5, which is why they are grouped together.
In the unrelenting positive mode that I have been in during our proceedings, we should first acknowledge that the law will be strengthened by clause 9, which we have dealt with, because it requires local authorities to have regard to family placements with relatives and friends and kinship care. We should recognise that part of the battle has been won before we deal with the new clauses on family group conferences.
New clause 29 is slightly more elegantly drafted than new clause 5, but I would say that. I do not personally claim the credit for it; it is entirely thanks to the work of the Family Rights Group. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred to its briefing when discussing new clause 5 and he stole the rest of my thunder by referring to the National Children’s Home briefing, so there are no briefings left that I can refer the Committee to.
New clause 29 would amend section 22 of the Children Act 1989, which is the section that clause 9 will amend to make references to kinship care in a more prominent place. I am seeking in new clause 29 to complete a movement that the Government have already begun in clause 9 by requiring family group conferences to take place. To reiterate what the hon. Gentleman said about the benefits of family group conferences, they apply all through the journey that leads—potentially—into and out of care. A family group conference at the right time when a family crisis is building up could help to identify the problems and solutions without care ever becoming necessary, and the child involved could stay with its parents or close family. If that is not possible—we still want to avoid care if possible—we could look at whether the wider family could cope with a package of support. A family group conference would be valuable even if a child temporarily goes into care, because the problems that caused that could be solved to enable a child to return home. When a child comes to the end of period in care, when, for example, they become an adult, there could be situations in which the wider family is absolutely the right place to support a person who returns as a new adult. A family group conference could still bring together family members who could contribute to that successful transition from being in care to becoming an independent adult.
At every stage of the process, family group conferences are useful. The hon. Gentleman did not mention today something from the Family Rights Group briefing that he mentioned on the first day of our proceedings, which is that recent research has found that only 4 per cent. of family and friends placements are initiated by social workers. That is modern research from 2008 so that is up-to-date information. It demonstrates that a lot of social workers are not used to convening family group conferences and are perhaps not convinced of their benefit. A little tilt in the right direction in the Bill would help to make that more of a routine consideration.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the NCH briefing paper that hon. Members have received is not about family group conferences, but about the success of the NCH intensive family support service. As he says, it demonstrates not just an effective outcome, but a cost-effective way of dealing with problem cases. The quotation that he gave about cost savings was related specifically to a study in Glamorgan, where there were 15 cases of intensive support with NCH. Each of those interventions produced a potential saving of £127,000. Multiplied by 15, that is a saving of about £2 million for one local authority in Wales. If that were scaled up to the rest of the UK, we could be talking about a third of a billion pounds. That is how exciting and important it is for us to give serious attention to this proposal.
On the outcomes side of the NCH briefing, it reports success not just in Merton, but in Plymouth, where 94 per cent. of young people referred did not enter the care system and in Tower Hamlets, where 88 per cent. of the young people remained with their families. There is potential that alternative approaches, if used at the right time with the right consideration and the right package of support, can avoid children being taken into care unnecessarily or children being detained in care for longer than is necessary for their welfare.
I am pleased to support both new clauses. They push Ministers to finish the job that was well started in clause 9. However, the end will not be achieved unless we ensure that social workers routinely consider in every case whether a family group conference would be of assistance.

Angela Watkinson: I rise to speak briefly in support of new clause 5. When I was an Essex county councillor, I did some research into family group conferencing. It originated in the Maori community in New Zealand, where it has been greatly beneficial in keeping children out of care. That has also been seen in this country and elsewhere. It combines the good will and effort, not just of the nuclear family and the extended family, but of others who form part of the child’s social network. I urge the Minister to give serious consideration to supporting adding the new clause to the Bill.

Annette Brooke: I have signed up to elegance. Both new clauses are important. Rather than repeat what has been in the numerous briefings on this matter, I would just like to emphasise that early intervention is all-important. I was reading about the “Public Law Outline” the other day and consideration of family conferencing is a requisite. However, I was concerned whether that was happening at the point of crisis. It is not stated in the new clauses, but to my mind, if possible, family conferencing should kick in at a much earlier stage than I understood it would under the procedures of the “Public Law Outline”. Intervening early to bring the family together helps to deal with all of the points that we have made about kinship care. It also highlights at that early stage whether there is enough support for the family, financially or otherwise. We have discussed that issue and the Minister has committed to a consultation on appropriate guidance.
I quoted various figures on Second Reading. It is clear just from looking at the figures that the amount spent on family support has some relation to the number of children being taken into care. There might not be a direct one-to-one relationship, but the statistics are quite clear. It is staggering that we spend three times as much on looking after children in care as we do on family support as a whole. We are talking about a whole package, but the family conferencing aspect is a really important part of it. There clearly is that aspect of invest to save.
I, too, was struck by the 4 per cent. figure that came in one of our briefings: family and friends placements were initiated by social workers in only 4 per cent. of cases. That is quite staggering and shows what a long way we have to go along this route. These amendments are important to break this pattern. To reiterate, the important point for me is that family conferencing should ideally come much sooner than a crisis point in the family.

Beverley Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford for recognising that one of the major thrusts of this legislation and the wider package in the White Paper is to increase substantially the number of children who can be cared for somewhere within their birth families or with friends who are known to them. That is an objective that we share. I certainly understand the reasons behind this amendment, with its hope that an automatic consideration of family group conferencing might be another catalyst for increasing the number of children who can go into some form of kinship care.
I hope that hon. Members will also recognise that in addition to this Bill, we are trying to move forward with a whole range of options that are specifically focused on supporting parents at an early stage when they are getting into difficulties. That is not necessarily at the stage at which family group conferencing would be considered now when there is a question whether a child can be accommodated within their own family or might need some alternative accommodation. There is a wide range of parenting interventions, including the piloting of new, intensive parenting programmes, increased support for relative carers and some very specific models, such as multi-systemic therapy for adolescents at high risk of entering care or custody and intensive fostering. We are promoting a whole range of options, which includes family group conferences.
The problem with family group conferencing from the point of view of these amendments is twofold. First, it is a complex service to administer. It requires a high level of skill and confidence from the practitioners who are organising it. That is why we have already started to promote the development of expertise, knowledge and skills in family group conferencing, commissioning a programme of regional training events, for example, to equip managers and practitioners with the necessary skills to develop the use of this model. That is very different from putting a requirement in primary legislation for a family group conference for every family. It goes completely against the spirit, the letter and the culture that we have tried to inculcate and develop since the Children Act 1989, which imposes a general duty on local authorities to provide a range and level of support services that are appropriate for children in need, including to promote their upbringing in their family.
Generally family group conferences are seen as a very valuable element in the range of local services. We want to see them used more widely. We are putting in the resources to promote the expertise that will enable that to happen. To put a single method in the Bill above all others, including some that are being developed, would be contrary to the spirit of section 17 of the 1989 Act. It would limit the flexibility of local authorities and would be quite prohibitive for them in their attempts to meet children’s needs on an individual basis. That is not to say that I do not think family group conferences are important or that they should be used more often. I do. We have highlighted that in “Care Matters” and have included references to family group conferences in “Working Together to Safeguard Children”, which we published in 2006. We have also included references in the revised volume I of the Children Act guidance that was published this year.

Angela Watkinson: The right hon. Lady’s comments have led me to take a closer look at the new clause. The wording says “where appropriate” and “any other reasonable intervention”, so it is not suggesting that family group conferencing should be an exclusive strategy.

Beverley Hughes: Putting that method in the Bill gives it pre-eminence and means that the local authority should consider it above any other methods that they would use. That is the point I am trying to make in relation to the 1989 Act. I understand that stakeholders have concerns and I would like to join in the references made to NCH because it has done a great deal to take forward improved methods of working with children and families. We have adopted many of those methods—not only family group conferencing, but family intervention projects, which I will mention in a moment.
I recognise that stakeholders feel there is a way to go in developing the skills and knowledge in the field to deliver effective family group conferencing services. In November 2006, with help from stakeholders, we funded the publication of a tool kit, which aimed to support the use of family group conference projects and assist new agencies in setting up those kinds of services where none exist. In December last year, we published a family group conference reader, which contains a wide-range of essays from experienced practitioners on research, policy and practice perspectives. We have also launched guidance to local authorities, which emphasises that support should be available to families at the earliest point it is needed.

Tim Loughton: I would like to probe the matter further because I want the Minister to give examples of what other methods, as she described it, would be de-prioritised by the insertion of the new clause.

Beverley Hughes: I was just coming to that point. For three specific reasons, the right way to promote the use of family group conferencing is to do what we do already: suffuse our documents with references to family group conferences; continue to develop the knowledge, training and expertise required; and put the method in the context of a focus on early intervention and prevention. However, we should also recognise that it is not the only method. In relation to the point at which family group conferencing is used at the moment—in the context of a child possibly being accommodated—we are developing other options that bring families together at a much earlier stage, for example, when children show difficulties that are identified in primary school. We also have the family pathfinders project, the family intervention projects that NCH has helped us to develop, and the family nurse partnerships, which for the first time identify the need to support disadvantaged mothers at the point of birth. That support continues to be provided by a specially trained health visitor over two years to try to prevent the need further down the line for a family group conference to discuss whether the child needs to be accommodated.
For those reasons, I do not want to fetter local authorities with one particular method. I support the method when it is necessary and think that it can achieve some excellent results, but in relation to the panoply of intervening much earlier in families and the wide range of alternatives that are now being developed, we should stick with the spirit of the 1989 Act.
I say to the hon. Member for Upminster that the amendment to new clause 5, which requires family group conferencing to be considered where appropriate, adds nothing to the existing requirement in section 17 of the 1989 Act for local authorities to consider whatever is necessary, as appropriate.

David Kidney: I am looking for a way forward that does not involve primary legislation. My right hon. Friend mentioned the publication “Working Together to Safeguard Children” and the tool kit, which is welcome. Clearly, when the Act is passed, it will include new guidance incorporating what we have said about clause 9 and the new consideration of kinship care. Am I right in saying that when social workers consider taking care proceedings, they have a kind of handbook so they can check everything they need to before and so they have evidence they have done so? Would my right hon. Friend undertake to consider those different documents in the round, to see whether together we could apply that focus that she mentioned suffusing all the documents, with consideration of how the family group conference might be a helpful tool in kinship care cases, for example?

Beverley Hughes: I am certainly happy to reiterate that, as my hon. Friend said, I will undertake to continue to suffuse all the relevant documents with a reference to family group conferencing and a range of other methods, to ensure the early intervention that members of the Committee rightly want to see. I share that objective, but I hope that the Committee will accept that it would not be right to specify one particular method in the Bill. We can, however, use the other available mechanisms to inform and shape social work practice—the guidance that my hon. Friends referred to—and I undertake to do that. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friends will feel able to withdraw the new clause.

Tim Loughton: I am slightly disappointed, to start with, about the reference to the more elegant of the proposed new clauses—I did not come into politics to be elegant. I came into politics to get something done, to create meaningful legislation and I am perfectly prepared to cast aside elegance in the pursuit of brevity and succinctness, of which our new clause is the epitome. It goes to the heart of the matter slightly less elegantly, but more practically, than the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford, but I did not seek to undermine it in any way and I shall not do so now. Both new clauses would add something to the Bill.
I was disappointed by the Minister because I do not think that the new clause would fetter, as she put it, the ability or flexibility of social workers and local authorities and I was not convinced by her response to my request regarding what other matters would be deprioritised by inserting the new clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster made some pertinent points about the origins of family conferencing and how important and effective it has been, in the second reference of the day to New Zealand, from which we can clearly learn quite a lot.
I shall not press the new clause, but if we were to come back to this issue on Report—the hon. Member for Stafford has mentioned possible uses within the tool kit or with guidance elsewhere. Given that the Bill may not Report for some months, it might be useful for the Minister to report back on the use of family group conferencing and how it is growing. It is currently happening according to a postcode lottery and too few placements are kinship placements, which would have a far greater likelihood of success if they resulted from family group conferencing—if it was still necessary for the child to go into the care system. On that basis, the Minister’s comments on that would help. The Minister may have sympathised with what we are trying to achieve, but many of us think that the proposal needs to have more force and a bit more bite.

Andrew Turner: I am concerned. Does the Minister read the new clause as recommending something that one does sometime during the process, or is it to happen at the end, almost as the last chance that a child has to remain in their home?

Tim Loughton: Our new clause would not fetter the chronology of that process at all, it just states:
“Before a child is committed into care, the local authority must, where appropriate, offer a family group conference and”—
perhaps it should read “or”—
“any other reasonable intervention which may alleviate the need for a child to be put into care.”
The family group conference could be the first thing to take place, it could be the very last thing to take place and if it was not successful then care proceedings might be triggered, or it could happen partway through the journey of dealing with a vulnerable child. I do not agree that the new clause would fetter the process. I will rephrase the new clause for Report. I will be grateful if in a few months’ time, perhaps at Report, the Minister could detail how the use of family group conferencing is growing. If it is not growing or if the figures are stalling, still low or unrepresentative of cases up and down the country, we will want to pursue it more aggressively.

David Kidney: I am always keen to be positive and helpful. A long time ago when the hon. Gentleman moved new clause 1, which, with its looked-after children welfare checklist, also referred to the desirability of keeping children with their families with the correct package of support, the then Minister offered to brigade the different laws and guidance to show us that those points were covered. This dovetails into that, because when we want to know about family group conferences, we want to know about how they relate to the points in the hon. Gentleman’s welfare checklist, do we not? It is reasonable to ask the Minister be ready by Report to be able to tell us about family group conferencing practice on the ground.

Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman makes a helpful point and I am always keen to be reasonable, as he knows. In the interests of reasonableness and of speeding along the Committee’s activity, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6

Looked after status
‘(1) The 1989 Act is amended as follows.
(2) After section 85(4) insert “; and
(c) in the exercise of their functions under paragraph (b) consider whether the child’s welfare is best safeguarded and promoted by being a looked-after child.”’.—[Tim Loughton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Tim Loughton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Greg Pope: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 10—Long-term placements—
‘In section 324 (c.56) (statement of special educational needs), of the Education Act 1996, at end insert—
“(7A) Where a statement specifies a school or type of school that would result in a child not ordinarily being resident with their parent, the authority shall consider whether the child’s welfare is best safeguarded and promoted by being a looked after child.
(7B) The duty imposed by subsection (8) shall be performed in accordance with regulations.”’.
New clause 33—Looked after status for children in health settings etc.—
‘(1) The 1989 Act is amended as follows.
(2) After section 85(4)(b) insert “; and
(c) in the exercise of their functions under sub-paragraph (b) the authority shall conduct a children in need assessment under section 17 for the purpose of determining whether the child’s welfare is best safeguarded and promoted by being a looked-after child.”’.
New clause 34—Looked after status for disabled children in education settings—
‘In the Education Act 1996, section 324, at end insert—
“(8) Where a statement specifies a school or type of school that would result in a child not ordinarily being resident with their parent, the authority shall carry out a children in need assessment under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, for the purposes of determining whether the child’s welfare is best safeguarded and promoted by being a looked after child.
(9) The assessment specified in subsection (8) above shall be carried out as soon as reasonably practicable and no more than 14 days after the date the statement is issued.”’.

Tim Loughton: New clauses 6 and 10 deal with children with disabilities in long-term placements. The issue has been raised in the Lords and it is a campaign by the Every Disabled Child Matters group. All of us in Committee sympathise with what that group has achieved; it has been very effective. I do not understand why the Government were not more sympathetic to adopting the proposal in another place, so I will be grateful for more clarification from the Minister in this place.
The Every Disabled Child Matters campaign welcomes the progress that the House of Lords made to improve the Bill for disabled children and young people, as do we. Part of that was the short breaks from caring provision, which we debated earlier and is greatly welcomed.
The new clauses would require local authorities to consider whether disabled children in long-term residential placements should have the protection and support of looked-after children status. They retain the flexibility to ensure that the right solution is found for each child and family, but make sure that every child placed away from home will have their safeguarding needs properly considered.
Looked-after status should include disabled children in long-term residential placements in education or health settings, some of whom are away from home for 52 weeks of the year with little or no parental contact. Looked-after status would provide a package of support for those children, including a contact plan to support parents to maintain contact with their children while they are away from home. We are talking about severely disabled children who require specialist placements. Those placements are few and far between and for many children will inevitably mean being a long distance from home, with implications and practical problems for keeping contact with their parents and other people looking out for them.
The few homes that offer those specialist services do a fantastic job. I have visited many of them and have seen the services and the dedication of the staff. Those long-term placements are for children who are not in the care system on account of having been taken away from their birth parents because of abuse or other problems, but who are living away from their parents because they are severely disabled and require the intensive and specialist support that many of the homes and education or health settings offer.
The Every Disabled Child Matters campaign thinks that there is a gap in the system. The 2005 review of disabled children in residential placements recommended a more consistent application of looked-after status for disabled children spending long periods in residential placements, particularly those are far from home. That recommendation recognises that disabled children are three times more likely to be subject to abuse than their non-disabled peers, and therefore require much more robust child protection measures and support from the placing authority. There is widespread confusion on the part of residential settings, local authorities and parents about that, and Government research shows that guidance is too often disregarded. We are not talking about an enormous body of children. Recent statistics show that 338 children are placed in residential accommodation for 52 weeks of the year without the protection of looked-after status. The new clauses would send a clear message to local authorities that they should consider looked-after status for disabled children in long-term placements, to determine whether or not that is the best way to keep them safe.
The current system for allocating looked-after status is inconsistent and confusing for families, and it is not optimal for safeguarding vulnerable children. We are not trying to undermine the voice of the parents; the proposed approach would support the creation of partnerships between parents and local authorities, and those partnerships would maintain parental rights and responsibilities as set out in section 20 of the Children Act 1989. That section was designed as an opportunity to create such partnerships, and placements made under it are based on a voluntary arrangement between the local authority and the child’s parents. That does not affect parental responsibility, which remains with the natural parents. We are not stepping in to override the parents’ wishes and be unduly nannying.
To conclude, I shall outline the benefits of looked-after status for this small body of children. Disabled children living away from home without looked-after status miss out on a range of measures to support and protect their welfare. If looked-after status were given to those children, they could receive an allocated social worker, and a care plan that identified their needs and how those should be met, and which included the views and wishes of the child and their family. There would also be a health assessment and health plan, and a contact plan to promote contact between the child and their family, along with access to support for the costs associated with visits from the family. There would be an allocated independent reviewing officer to monitor implementation of the care plan and to ensure that the child’s views were being taken into account, and finally there would be regular reviews of the placement, and access to after care advice and assistance to support the young person’s successful move on from the placement.
The solution proposed by the new clauses put forward by the Every Disabled Child Matters group is a straightforward assessment process at the point of placement, to decide whether looked-after status would best promote a child’s welfare. The status would not be compulsory. Parents and local authorities would decide together, with input from the child, whether measures that come with looked-after status, such as an allocated social worker and access to the support and protection they provide, would benefit the child. That, after all, is our primary consideration. The new clauses would be a positive addition to the Bill, and I genuinely do not understand why the Government did not respond more positively in another place. Perhaps they have had a change of heart, which I will be delighted to hear now from the Minister.

Lynda Waltho: I rise to speak to new clauses 33 and 34 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East.
I am particularly keen to ensure that the Bill supports and protects disabled children who live away from home, many—as the hon. Gentleman said—of whom have profound communication difficulties. Those children are the least able to tell anybody how they feel—whether they are happy, settled or frustrated, or possibly scared or frightened. Those children are truly the most vulnerable of the vulnerable and that means that the state has to play a far larger role. The Bill provides us with a key opportunity to ensure that local authorities actively consider the welfare needs of disabled children when arranging long-term placements, some of which are for 52 weeks of the year. To include such a duty would represent part of the joining up of the “Every Child Matters” agenda, so that it would really work and every disabled child would truly matter, alongside their peers. There is no clear legislation that ensures that local authorities consider whether looked-after status would best protect the welfare of a child being placed away from home, in either a long-term educational setting or a health setting. Interestingly, however, when a child is placed away from home during a crisis, even if it is only for one night, that child automatically has looked-after status.
Children who will be living away from home for a large part of the year should have access to the benefits of looked-after status. It is really the gold standard, and offers almost the shopping list of benefits that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham read out; that is so important. All of those benefits are so vital to these vulnerable children: the allocated social worker; the care plan; the health plan, and the contact plan. Of course, if they do not get that looked-after status, they will only get a once-a-year review of their statement, and there is such a wide disparity there.

Kerry McCarthy: As my hon. Friend mentioned, I have seconded the new clauses. Is it not the case that some placements are not available to children unless they have looked-after status, because of the extra support that goes with it?

Lynda Waltho: Indeed, there are schools and residential homes that will not accept children unless they have looked-after status. The work done at Sunfield school in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove—it actually has a Stourbridge address, so I feel that it is partly in my constituency too—is absolutely fantastic. It is run by Barry Carpenter and his staff, and it will not accept children without looked-after status. It is so vital that that status is conferred on these children.
Furthermore, conferring looked-after status will improve the transition of these children to adult services; that is something that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham did not mention. It makes that transition much smoother because, of course, the child is known to the authorities and these children are most likely to have continuing needs.
Recent ministerial statements made in the other place are to be welcomed and they show a movement towards this position of conferring looked-after status, indicating, I hope, that the Government agree broadly that most disabled children in long-term placements, where the local authority has been involved, should really be looked after. However, there is a great deal of confusion around this issue. Local authorities, residential placements and the Government’s own research in 2005 indicate that current guidance is sometimes disregarded.
The Every Disabled Child Matters campaign group and its partners are keen to see the Bill amended to reflect the Government’s move to this position. Such an amendment would send the clearest signal possible to local authorities that they should actively be considering conferring looked-after status in these cases.
I know that the Minister is likely to tell me that guidance already exists and that it is possible to strengthen the regulations. However, as we have already heard, there is evidence that the guidance is confusing, so why not take the opportunity now of amending the Bill effectively while we have the chance to do so, which would send out a strong signal?
I know that the ministerial team has also been looking at providing additional protection for these children by strengthening the visiting regime, but why should we set up a parallel system when we could offer what is really the gold standard of protection for our most vulnerable children and do so now? To suggest an alternative way forward borders on possibly relegating such children to second-class status, and that would not give them the support that looked-after status would. If there is a visiting regime, what status would it have? Would the people in that regime be students, or people unused to, for example, the profound problems and behaviours of a young person with severe autism?
I will briefly mention two case studies. Both children attended Summerfield school, which I have previously referred to. James did not have looked-after status but he should have had it. He had a severe learning disability, but his family was told by the local authority that it was not necessary for him to be looked after. He had no care plan and no formal arrangements to review his placement, except an annual education review. That meeting reviews his statement and his educational needs but not his overall well-being, and that is the important point. His mother has full parental responsibility but does not benefit from any support or assistance from the local authority. James did not have a named social worker. His mother has three other children and is a single parent. She has no car and can only afford to visit him, using public transport, maybe three or four times a year. She is not legally entitled to any assistance.
Adam, on the other hand, has a severe learning disability but is being looked after by his local authority. The local authority and his mother share parental responsibility. Adam has a care plan through which his needs are reviewed within school and on a wider basis. He has regular visits from a named social worker and a review twice a year that is chaired by an independent reviewing officer. Adam’s care plan provides for regular contact to see his mother and transport is paid for by the local authority.
To sum up, looked-after status is about safeguarding planning, target setting and monitoring for our most vulnerable children. For too long, there has been too much confusion from local authorities in this area. This is the time to end the confusion and send the clearest message possible. This is a crucial chance to put the situation right for the first time and create a clear duty that gives disabled children living away from home the same rights to support and protection as their non-disabled peers. I urge the Minister to grasp this chance and actively consider this proposal.

Annette Brooke: Perhaps I should start by endorsing the comments that have been made to avoid being repetitive. I, too, would like to welcome the duty being put on local authorities for short breaks. That is important and is something that the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign fought for. It is important to identify areas where there is no clear legal duty. The new clauses ask local authorities to consider only whether disabled children should have looked-after status. We have been through all the advantages of this measure.
I, too, have looked at the case studies, but have chosen two different ones, which I would like to refer to briefly because they add further points to those that have already been made about vulnerability. This is the example of Thomas:
“Now that social services have given Thomas looked after child status, social services deal with all the difficulties and I can be a parent rather than a social worker.”
I thought that that was the most striking way of describing the advantages of looked-after status. It goes on:
“I also have the energy to be more assertive and to make positive decisions which are in Thomas’ interests, so when we have meetings with the social worker and other people involved with Thomas’ care, I am able to assert my parental authority.”
That is so important. In its way, it is as important as the short breaks in helping the parent to hold together and do the best for their child.
Secondly, I thought that the case study of Mark was rather telling. It states that
“when the government set targets for local authorities to reduce the number of children in the looked after system, we were put under some pressure to de-classify him as a looked after child.”
These parents had to fight to keep looked-after status. That shows how a local authority can respond to something that the Government said for particular reasons in a way that is not acceptable in this day and age and in light of the current debate. It is important to have this legal duty in the Bill to show that every disabled child matters.

Kevin Brennan: Welcome back to the Chair, Mr. Pope.
I have a great deal of sympathy with many of the remarks that have been made. There is accord across the Committee about this group of children and the problems that they face. I acknowledge the campaigning of hon. Members across the House and of the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign. We are all committed to ensuring that children placed away from home are not forgotten and that they are provided with the support and services they need to thrive. We are committed to the sort of change that all Committee members are looking for.
We should be clear that there is no gap in the legislative framework. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said that there was no clear legal duty. In fact, clear legal duties are outlined. She quoted somebody from the case study talking about Government targets to reduce the number of people in the looked-after system. The Government have never had any such targets. Sometimes I think that we should have targets to reduce the number of myths about targets that the Government have never had. Of course we have never had such a target and we have explicitly ruled one out for obvious reasons.
As I have said, there is no gap in the legislative framework. Unfortunately, the changes that the new clauses propose would not address the problem that we are all seeking to address, not least because they all have a serious defect. They purport to require the local authority to consider whether a child’s welfare would be best safeguarded and promoted by he or she becoming a looked-after child, but that drafting does not fit with the existing legislative scheme of the Children Act 1989. Although the expression “looked-after child” is a useful shorthand term to refer to the bundle of responsibilities that local authorities owe to a particular group of children under the 1989 Act, in strict legal terms the defining issue is the provision of accommodation. The other responsibilities flow from that, such as the duties to maintain the child and make a plan for their short and long-term care and keep it under regular review, and the new duty to arrange regular visits.
I appreciate the objective that all the new clauses share. They seek to ensure that social services are actively involved in a timely and appropriate manner when a decision is taken to place a child in an institutional setting so that consideration is given in every case to the child’s social care needs. However, not only is the drafting flawed and therefore unacceptable, but the amendments that they would make would have no practical effect. The effect of the amendments to section 85, introduced by new clauses 6 and 33, would add nothing to the existing requirements in the provision whereby local authorities must consider the extent to which, if at all, they should exercise their functions under the 1989 Act with regard to the child. It is not possible for the local authority to perform that duty without considering whether the child is a child in need for the purposes of part 3 of the 1989 Act and therefore what services it should provide.
Similarly, the amendment to the education legislation proposed in new clauses 10 and 34 would have no practical effect. The legislation and the code of practice on special educational needs provide a comprehensive framework that clearly and explicitly requires education officers to seek input from social services professionals before making placement decisions. The legislation also requires education officers to ensure that social services are notified when assessments are carried out, before placement decisions are made and again when the statement of special educations needs is reviewed. Section 85 of the 1989 Act imposes explicit statutory duties on local authorities exercising their education functions and on health bodies to notify the responsible local authorities at the time the placement in made. It also requires those local authorities to consider the extent to which they need to exercise their functions under the 1989 Act in relation to the child.
I agree wholeheartedly that more needs to be done to ensure that those children’s needs are met and that parents are properly supported in maintaining their role. Local authorities must perform all of those duties and obligations and develop with other public bodies a properly integrated approach that is capable of assessing children’s needs in the round and providing a multi-agency service. In particular, authorities must be discouraged from viewing children only through an education or health lens.
We do not agree, however, that these new clauses represent a legislative magic bullet. In our view, the key lies in improving social work practice and local authorities’ strategic planning and delivery. As a Government, we have obviously been striving consistently for more and better multi-agency working. That is why we brought in the Children Act 2004 and developed the children’s trust model of delivery. It is the rationale behind “Every Child Matters”, and that is why we will continue to work hard with local authorities to ensure that current practice, when poor, is brought up to the standard of the best.
The Bill includes provisions that build on and strengthen the existing framework under which local authorities are notified of, monitor and supervise all children who are placed away from home, regardless of the reasons for that placement. The improvements to the notification arrangements set out in clause 18 and the new visiting requirement set out clause 19 will make a practical contribution to improving practice and developing multi-agency working. We will supplement those new duties in the Bill with regulations and statutory guidance that will set out the clear requirements of the local authority visitor’s and our expectations of the services that local authorities should provide to support the active involvement of parents in their children’s lives.
As part of our revision of the statutory—[Interruption.] I will say that again because that was a rather loud ejaculation. As part of our revision of the statutory Children Act guidance, we will also set out our expectations of the actions that social services teams should take when they are alerted by their education colleagues to the likelihood of a child being educated at a residential school and they are involved in the decision making. There should be a presumption in every case that the child is likely to be a child in need, and an initial assessment should be undertaken in line with the framework for assessment of children in need and their families to assess the parents’ capacity to meet the child’s needs in the context of wider family and environmental factors. That assessment will identify whether a more in-depth, core assessment is appropriate.
However, we should be clear on one point, on which I think hon. Members will agree. Although that group of children is vulnerable in general and should therefore be considered for services, we must not forget that the children are all individuals and that their needs and family circumstances will vary depending on how much time they spend with their family, how far the placements are from their homes and whether they are intended to provide for the child in the long term. That is why, in the other place, we cautioned against the previous version of this approach—automatic looked-after status, which would constitute making an inappropriate assumption about family life.
We take these issues very seriously. We have been listening and I again point hon. Members to clauses 18 and 19 as evidence of our commitment to that group of children. Those provisions will be a lever by which to change practice and will support the other changes that we are introducing through work force reform. For example, with children who are placed by health in the national framework for children and young people’s continuing care, which the Department of Health has been working on closely with my Department and is publishing for consultation shortly, there is an emphasis on multi-agency working. We want to ensure that, wherever possible, there are multi-agency decisions involving education and social services on the provision of services to meet children’s long-term health needs, including accommodation provision. Ensuring that the social care needs of such a diverse group of children are met, whilst respecting their wishes, where possible, and their parents wishes, is particularly challenging, especially as their needs and their family’s needs will change as they grow and develop. That is why our clauses provide a solution as part of the wider “Care Matters” agenda, and will drive forward real change.
As I said at the outset, there is accord across the Committee on what we are trying to achieve. However, I understand and have listened closely to what hon. Members have said, and I undertake to look at the issues again. I will consider with my right hon. Friend how we might create the sort of changes that we all envisage, and whether there is anything that we can do, in addition to what I have outlined, to achieve that shared goal. We will continue our dialogue with hon. Members and with the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign, and we will come forward on Report with any conclusions that might be drawn from those further consultations once we have unpacked hon. Members’ practical concerns.
As I have said, we are committed to taking this opportunity to explore and establish best practice in this area, including how local authorities can best support continued parental involvement with a child in a long-term placement, and to capture it in our statutory guidance. On that basis, I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments.

Tim Loughton: We have had a helpful debate, but for the sake of clarity and Hansard, I shall refer to the inelegance of terminology that the Minister just used. Let me make it clear that his oratory was overcome not by an ejaculation but by a sneeze. We do not want the readers of Hansard to get any odd ideas about what goes on in Committee, do we? I know that his Welsh, fluent oratory can be terribly exciting, but it is not quite that exciting.
The Minister has said that the drafting of the new clauses is flawed—I would hate to dupe the Committee into passing a measure that was flawed—but he perfectly appreciates the aim of the proposals. Perhaps we need to revisit the measures so that they would have practical effects. However, I am still slightly confused. The Minister referred to the 2004 Act and the 1989 Act. Section 85 of the latter states that the accommodating local authority that has been notified should
“take such steps as are reasonably practicable to enable them to determine whether the child’s welfare is adequately safeguarded and promoted while he is accommodated by the accommodating authority”.
That measure is not quite as definitive and rigorous as the measure proposed by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and that proposed by me and my hon. Friends. It is not clear from what the Minister said whether the terminology that is already in place, which is aided and abetted by this legislation and the regulations that will come with it, would give some of the additional safeguards that looked-after status would convey, such as the appointment of an IRO, the allocation of a social worker and contact plan, and so on.
I am pleased and grateful that the Minister has, in a spirit of positivity, said that he will look again at the issues to try to create change to achieve what he has acknowledged is our shared goal, but, clearly, the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign thinks that there is still a serious gap. It needs further assurances that those extra safeguards will be available to those children without formally offering them looked-after status. If the Minister could come back on Report and give rather more substantial guarantees to that effect, all sides might be satisfied, on the basis that there is a defect in the new clauses.
To go back to the proposal of the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, if some establishments decline to accept and accommodate some of those 300 or so children unless they have looked-after status, there is a problem in the system. Perhaps that is because the authorities do not understand the system or that they come up against practical shortfalls in providing the level of support that they rightly deem the children will need if they are accommodated. In any case, they need to know and we need to send out a clearer message. We might have the opportunity on Report for further debate on the proposals, and the Minister will get the opportunity to send out that clearer message. There is clearly some confusion among various parties at the moment. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 11

Scope of inspections by the chief inspector
‘In section 147 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (c. 40) (inspection of premises in connection with adoption and fostering functions) after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) The Chief Inspector must consider the promotion of the welfare and safety of a child when carrying out the inspections mentioned in this section.”’.—[Tim Loughton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Tim Loughton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Very briefly, the issue dealt with in new clause 11 was debated and taken up in another place by my noble Friend Baroness Morris of Bolton, who was supported by the noble Lord Ramsbotham. It would ensure that the chief inspector considers the suitability of the accommodation not only in terms of door sizes and facilities and so on, but whether it is conducive to supporting the welfare and safety of a child. The new clause would broaden the scope of what is taken into account in an inspection of children’s homes. As my noble Friend said in the House of Lords, essentially the measure would place a duty on an inspector to make inspections about more than just the number of beds that a children’s home provides and the average costs of meals for children per day. There is a fear that the inspections are a bit of a tick-box exercise in some cases. In an earlier debate, I mentioned some of my experiences of children’s homes in my constituency at which, clearly, the level of care and supervision of the children was woefully inadequate. In one case, an Ofsted inspection had said that everything was okay with the physicality of the accommodation, but everything was clearly not okay with the children’s welfare.

It being twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock, The Chairmanadjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at One o’clock.